Additionally, if you had ever read anything about Constitutional law you would know that the current interpretation of the tenth amendment provides more protections for the states than ever before. Contrary to your uninformed BS, the limits placed on the federal government by the tenth amendment have not “eroded” as you suggest, but have in fact grown quite a lot stronger. Until the 30s, the tenth amendment was never even brought up in courts because it was assumed that it simply restated the relationship between the branches of government as outlined in the articles, in the 40’s it came up but was completely dismissed by the courts. The first time that it was actually used to limit federal powers was in the 90’s (with the exception of one time in the 30s in a case that was overruled less than a year later), and it has been used several times since then (usually in O’Conner opinions) to limit the role of the federal government in regulating the states (Printz, NY v. US, Morrison, etc…)

Not only that, but it has absolutely no bearing on the SCHIP program because the SCHIP program is administered completely by the states. If anything, a (weak) case could be made that the 10th amendment could be used to protect the states from the restrictions placed on SCHIP money by the current administration.(You could really only make the case if the current interpretation of the commerce clause were rolled back to square one, which would require four more justices with the same loopy (but interesting, and consistent) perspective as Thomas.)

You should probably be a bit smarter than you are if you’re going to talk about this stuff in public.

Now that’s ridiculous!

What are you basing this on? Why do you think I don’t believe those things. If anything, all of those facts are just more evidence that they could afford insurance…low house payment, low tuition payment…

As I said in this post, I have not read or heard anything about this other than what I read on GMD and in the article and post linked there. Unless Rush Limbaugh is a GMD contributor, you are assuming things that are just not true about what I think.

At any rate, I take it you’re choosing not to believe those ‘facts’? The guy is obviously lying when he bought that house in 1991 for 50k, right? Left wing spin. And his daughter isn’t really getting that scholarship, right?

Oh, and Where is this compelling evidence that somehow the private sector (motivated by nothing by profit) always does things better than the public sector?

“it is hard to deny what Republicans are- a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their misfortune.”- John Cole

Umm… those are the facts in the GMD post I linked to, no? Ergo, I already had those fact before writing this post, no? So, what’s your point? What fact is supposed to change my opinion?

And, I suggest that you re-read the post you are referring to. Tell me where I say that that type of racism does not exist. I would love to see this.